Line of Succession to the British Throne

[Moonmaiden23]

Sorry, but your statement about how the RC Church views baptized unconfirmed children as convenient ways to inflate numbers is as cynical as it is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, baptism having replaced circumcision in the old Mosaic Law incorporates a person FULLY into the Body of Christ.

In the Eastern Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after Baptism.

You are a full member of the Church once you are baptized, period. In the Western/Latin Rite Confirmation brings you to full maturity in that Body.

Without Confirmation, you cannot receive Holy Orders or the Sacrament of Matrimony. But you can receive the Eucharist.

 

[Heavs]

Sorry, but your statement about how the RC Church views baptized unconfirmed children as convenient ways to inflate numbers is as cynical as it is incorrect.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, baptism having replaced circumcision in the old Mosaic Law incorporates a person FULLY into the Body of Christ.

In the Eastern Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church, the Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred immediately after Baptism.

You are a full member of the Church once you are baptized, period. In the Western/Latin Rite Confirmation brings you to full maturity in that Body.

Without Confirmation, you cannot receive Holy Orders or the Sacrament of Matrimony. But you can receive the Eucharist.

Fair enough. I should know better being a member of a church that practices child baptism and then confirmation myself (which I did note) I take that back. I just have a couple of friends who found it very difficult to even get a note next to their baptism records that said "no longer a member of the church" and got very cynical about the "generous" comment, although I'm sure that's not the case everywhere. I know there are times/places when various religious organisations use birth ceremony records rather than active, participatory membership in order to seem larger and more influential or receive more money/perks from the government and conflated that and theology which I should not have done.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And as mentioned previously the Catholic church itself treats children baptized Catholic as church members. In my opinion it would be strange if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous towards potential Catholics than the Catholic church itself.

The RC Church treats baptised but not confirmed people as Catholics partly because it swells their numbers *a lot* (same for other churches including CofE) not because they're being more generous.

I was referring to the Royal Household being more generous than the Catholic Church in their (the RF's) interpretation of the Act of Settlement of 1701 ("if an explicitly anti-Catholic statute was interpreted as more generous"). If the Catholic Church treats a Catholic-baptized infant as Catholic, whereas the Royal Family treats the same infant as Protestant (even if born to a Catholic parent like Lord Nicholas), then the Royal Family's interpretation is more generous to the infant since it allows him or her to remain in line to the throne, whereas the Catholic Church's interpretation does not.

As I said, I think the anti-Catholicism of the Act of Settlement strongly indicates that the generous interpretation was not intended by its drafters. The Act went as far as to ban even Protestants who had converted from Catholicism (whereas Protestant converts from any other denomination or religion were still allowed to take the throne) and, as originally enacted, Protestants married to Catholics (but not Protestants married to members of any other denomination or religion). I find that to be clear evidence that the drafters intended the Act to be expansive, eliminating even persons with only a weak familial connection to Catholicism, as far as was feasible.

It's definitely not the case now but in previous decades and centuries unless you were from an explicitly Catholic or Jewish etc family the presumption was that you were CofE (ish), especially with it being the official state religion.

Interesting! Was a general presumption of Protestantism for people born into Protestant families operative in 1688-1701, when statutes such as the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement were drafted?

Nor in the more religious Catholic countries do they wait for the Christening to declare their heir officially the heir, even if it takes a few months to plan.

I am having trouble recalling an example (none of the current European monarchies require the monarch to be Catholic, though I'm sure historically there were many such cases). Do you have one in mind?

With a succession based on literally being born maybe the legal presumption is that if you otherwise qualify by birth then you have to do something explicit in order to be removed rather than having to do something extra explicit to join? Sienna's parents were baptised CofE, married CofE, she's being "raised protestant" at least in a vague cultural way.

If the Church of England recognizes unbaptized but Protestant-raised children as Protestants then that would make sense of the royal website's inclusion.

 

[Alison H]

I think most people regard a baby as belonging to the religion of the parents, whether that's Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. If the two parents are of two different religions, that's more complicated

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The children of the late Prince Friso of the Netherlands, Joanna Zaria gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg and Emma Luana gravin van Oranje-Nassau van Amsberg, were baptized by a former Catholic priest whom was connected to the Amsterdam Students' Ekklesia. That is an ecumenical Christian community which does not belong to any Church.

The two ladies were baptized at Huis ten Bosch Palace. They were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Afterwards it was communicated that it would be entirely to the two countesses to associate themselves to a Church. If any. Or not at all.

Both ladies are around place 1100 in the line of succession. In effect they belong to no any Church, neither Protestant nor Catholic.

 

[Mbruno]

I think most people regard a baby as belonging to the religion of the parents, whether that's Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or anything else. If the two parents are of two different religions, that's more complicated

I agree. It is assumed that children of Anglican parents in the Royal Family will be baptized in the CoE unless there is some strong reason to assume otherwise.

Technically, Tatiana Maria is probably right that the Royal Household should wait for them to be at least baptized to include them in the line of succession list, but other Protestant monarchies that also have religious tests for the succession like Sweden or, indirectly, Denmark and Norway, also seem to assume that babies born in the Royal Family have succession rights from birth, so I think that considering it othwerwise would be an unnecessary technicality.

I do think, however, that the situation of the children of Lord Nicholas Windsor is different as, in their case, the default assumption was that they were/would be Catholic and, by now, even if they have not been confirmed yet (I don't know), they must at least have had their first communion based on their ages, so there is no doubt in my mind that they are in "communion with the Church of Rome".

 

[Mbruno]

I am having trouble recalling an example (none of the current European monarchies require the monarch to be Catholic, though I'm sure historically there were many such cases). Do you have one in mind?

The Catholic Church is still the State Religion of the Principalities of Monaco and Liechtenstein. I assume that means the Sovereign Prince must be Catholic, but I was unable to confirm that independently.

Historically, there must be several examples. The Kings of France, Italy, Portugal and Spain (the latter prior to 1931) were required to be Catholic for example.

 

[JR76]

Technically, Tatiana Maria is probably right that the Royal Household should wait for them to be at least baptized to include them in the line of succession list, but other Protestant monarchies that also have religious tests for the succession like Sweden or, indirectly, Denmark and Norway, also seem to assume that babies born in the Royal Family have succession rights from birth, so I think that considering it othwerwise would be an unnecessary technicality.

To be a member of the Church of Sweden you have to either be baptized or have your parents notify your local parish that they want to put off the baptism until a later date (most often until the instruction before their confirmation). Therefore it would be clear early on (or at confirmation age at the latest) if a child born to someone in the Royal family would not be a member of the Church of Sweden.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Moved reply about religious tests in succession laws of other European monarchies here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-european-monarchies-38870-2.html#post2467096

 

[Tatiana Maria]

All of the Princess Royals descendants received permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act with the possible exception of her great-granddaughter Sophie Lascelles.

Interesting, could I inquire as to where you confirmed that?

Me too. It would have been pretty easy (i.e., the perfect moment) to include it in the Perth agreement and would have made total sense to restrict the line of succession either to George V's descendants (to include all current senior royals) or to a certain degree of relationship. 4th degree would have included all current senior royals and seems a rather safe number going forward.

The most efficient way, of course, to slim down the line would be, as Somebody suggested, to limit the number of eligible persons by proximity of blood to the last monarch. In the Netherlands, they use a cutoff in the third degree of consanguinity, which would include children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, siblings, nephews/nieces, and uncles/aunts of the monarch, but no cousins. The UK could go one degree further, i.e. up to the fourth degree, to include first cousins as well.

Moved to Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

 

[Gawin]

Interesting, could I inquire as to where you confirmed that?

My source was Marlene Koenig's blog (see the second paragraph following the photograph of Ernst August of Hanover and Caroline of Monaco as well as the second paragraph following the photograph of George and Marina of Kent with their children):

Royal Musings: Royal Marriages Act - and who was actually eligible?

In another post, Ms. Koening states Sophie Lascelles did not request permission when she married:
Royal Musings: Sophie Lascelles marries businessman

But the following Lascelles marriages aren't included in Wikipedia's list of RMA consents provided. Either the list is incomplete or permission wasn't requested.

(1) James Lascelles (second son of the 7th Earl of Harewood) and his (second) marriage, to Lori (Shadow) Susan Lee (1985).
(2) James Lascelles and his (third) marriage, to Joy Elias-Rilwin (1999).
(3) Jeremy Lascelles (third son of the 7th Earl) and his (first) marriage, to Julie Baylis (1981).
(4) Jeremy Lascelles and his (second) marriage, to Catherine Bell (1999)
(5) Mark Lascelles (fourth son of the 7th Earl) and his (first) marriage, to Andrea Kershaw (1992). But he did request and was granted permission for his (second) marriage, to Judith Kilburn (2011). Mark was the 7th Earl's son by his second wife, born three years before their marriage which means he does not have succession rights to the either the Crown or the earldom.
(6) Martin Lascelles, younger son of the Hon. Gerald Lascelles (younger son the Princess Royal) and his marriage to Charmaine Eccleston (1999). Martin was also born before his parents married.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marriages_Act_1772#Consents_for_marriages_under_the_Act

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks. I happened to read the same blogpost and wondered what records there were to back up the author's sweeping statement that all of the Lascelles excepting Sophie requested permission, because many of the Lascelles marriages are not included in any list of RMA consents I have seen. (Here is another: Cambridge University Heraldic and Genealogical Society - Royal Marriages Act, 1772)

Had the Royal Marriages Act not been repealed, Princess Charlotte would have needed to obtain royal consent for her marriage to Prince Oscar of Sweden. Without it, their children would have been considered illegitimate under British law. However, their children would have been exempt from the Royal Marriages Act, as they would be the descendants of a princess who married into a foreign family (unless Prince Oscar had acquired British nationality by the time he married Princess Charlotte).

Correction: If the Royal Marriages Act had never been repealed, then the "foreign family" exemption would not cover their hypothetical children, as Charlotte would not, under British law, have married into a foreign family, but only had illegitimate children with a member of a foreign family. I am not sure if being illegitimate would have exempted the children from the Royal Marriages Act.

You can look back at some of the engagement and wedding threads here and occasionally find people who would be hundreds of places down the line of succession noting that they had asked for and received permission from HM prior to 2013. I suppose it was just part of the family tradition and possibly bragging rights for some.

Or they may simply have wanted to have a legal marriage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At the time of Elizabeth's ascension to the British throne in 1952, all other Western monarchies, with the possible exception of Greece, only allowed women to inherit the crown if there was no man available from any of the male lines (if women were allowed to reign at all). In the UK, the sole precedent was the succession of Princess Victoria of Kent to the British throne over her uncle Prince Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland (who was in fact angry about being superseded by his niece). But in that event, the male heir still became a king (of Hanover).

So, in the 20th century, did the senior male-line heir, Elizabeth's uncle Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester (father of the current Duke of Gloucester) ever voice any complaints about not being King or about being outranked by his niece? Henry was the same age as Prince Knud of Denmark, who did, although of course their situations were very different.

 

[Mbruno]

At the time of Elizabeth's ascension to the British throne in 1952, all other Western monarchies, with the possible exception of Greece, only allowed women to inherit the crown if there was no man available from any of the male lines (if women were allowed to reign at all). In the UK, the sole precedent was the succession of Princess Victoria of Kent to the British throne over her uncle Prince Ernest Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland (who was in fact angry about being superseded by his niece). But in that event, the male heir still became a king (of Hanover).

So, in the 20th century, did the senior male-line heir, Elizabeth's uncle Prince Henry, the Duke of Gloucester (father of the current Duke of Gloucester) ever voice any complaints about not being King or about being outranked by his niece?

I don't think there was ever any doubt about Princess Elizabeth being ahead of the Duke of Gloucester in the order of succession as, in the English common law, "heirs of the body" as used in the Act of Settlement implies succession to the most senior descendant of the original grantee by male-preference cognatic primogeniture rather than Salic or Semi-Salic law. If agnatic primogeniture had been intended, the wording of the law would have been changed to "heirs male of the body".

 

[Heavs]

Salic Law as a concept has never really been in effect in England even disputed Queens Regnant still had support as far back as Empress Matilda. I know it's complicated but once Anne succeeded her sister/brother in law I don't think there was any doubt what so ever about who could or couldn't be Queen.

I don't think there was ever any doubt about Princess Elizabeth becoming Queen if her uncle did not have any children. She was born third in line to the throne and there's that famous statement of her grandfather that he hoped his eldest son would never have children and nothing stand between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne. Not that Bertie should try for a son or his other sons were likely to be in direct line.

From what we know of him in several different ways I'm not sure the Duke of Gloucester would have wanted everything that came from being King, rather the opposite. And obviously from his own writing the Duke of Kent casts himself as a faithful servant and that's not even going into many of his family converting to RC which would have been a crisis if he was King.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think there was ever any doubt about Princess Elizabeth being ahead of the Duke of Gloucester in the order of succession as, in the English common law, "heirs of the body" as used in the Act of Settlement implies succession to the most senior descendant of the original grantee by male-preference cognatic primogeniture rather than Salic or Semi-Salic law. If agnatic primogeniture had been intended, the wording of the law would have been changed to "heirs male of the body".

I don't think there was ever any doubt about Princess Elizabeth becoming Queen if her uncle did not have any children. She was born third in line to the throne and there's that famous statement of her grandfather that he hoped his eldest son would never have children and nothing stand between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne. Not that Bertie should try for a son or his other sons were likely to be in direct line.

True, but laws are not the only thing guiding the relationships and wishes of royals or their supporters in real life. There was no doubt that it was and still is legal in the UK for children to keep their mother's house or family name instead of that of their father, but that did not stop the Duke of Edinburgh from complaining acidly about it, or a good number of royal watchers even today wanting Charles to change the name of the royal house to Mountbatten or Oldenburg when he ascends the throne. And there was no doubt by the time Prince Carl Philip of Sweden was born that his older sister would become their father's heir, but that did not stop their father from publicly complaining about it as late as 2003.

In the European royal world of the early 20th century, a patrilineal male would almost always be placed above all females and their descendants, and so that is why I am wondering if a prince brought up in that environment, or any of his family or friends, perhaps resented his being "bypassed" for a niece.

From what we know of him in several different ways I'm not sure the Duke of Gloucester would have wanted everything that came from being King, rather the opposite.

Thank you, that is what I am interested to know. Would you mind explaining in more detail?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The four Cambridges all travelled in the same helicopter. Again. They really should stop doing that. I'm surprised it's allowed.

They have had more deaths: plane crashes, bomb attacks, car accidents. That is life. The British line of succession in gi-gan-tic anyway, plenty of successors.

I think that is an argument in favor of caution, not against it. The vast majority of the gigantic cohort of legal successors are at best unprepared and at worst deeply unsuitable to take control of the British monarchy.

If the legal line of succession were restrictive as in the Netherlands, Norway or Monaco, the public could take comfort in the knowledge that if something happened to the core royals, the appointment of the next monarch would be the responsibility of the Members of Parliament, who would presumably refrain from electing anyone patently unsuitable as monarch.

And if George travelled apart, undoubtedly Twitter would rage again about a superprivileged "entitled" boy costing the British taxpayers loads of Pounds with his huge carbon footprint while people are queuing thr food banks...

True, but the succession of an unprepared and possibly unpopular monarch would inflict more damage on the country and the monarchy in the long term than occasional Twitter outrage about Prince George's carbon footprint.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The other monarchies of Europe have more reasonable lines of succession than the United Kingdom. The UK is the only European monarchy whose succession laws are so blatantly inappropriate for the 21st century as to grant foreign royalty the right to become King or Queen of the UK.

How is it wrong? The majority of those people don’t have a chance anyways so it’s interesting from a historic and genealogical point of view.

The shared family history and genealogy can and would continue to exist and be of interest without foreign royalty being preferred over UK citizens as UK head of state.

How are U.K citizens going to be bothered about this? The real role regarding leadership is the prime minister not the monarch. Yes the monarch is “head of state” but it’s not the same. If there was a serious issue then maybe they might abolish the monarchy and create a republic, but it’s not a serious one now.

[...] The vast of majority of people in the BRF succession are untitled, some of them are British aristocrats, others are descendants of deposed foreign royalty, others are gentry and some are commoners.

If you have polling data, I would be interested. But even the prospect of certain members of the British royal family becoming king or queen is currently controversial. I find it impossible to believe that UK citizens would all be "unbothered" by having just any foreign royal, or foreign private citizen, or British private citizen whom the public has never heard of, suddenly representing them as their monarch, even if the prime minister is the political leader of the country.

I don't think the reason the monarchy hasn't been abolished over this issue is that UK citizens would be perfectly happy to have the king of Norway or a Mr. Lascelles as their King. It is because the situation has not actually materialized, is currently unlikely to materialize, and the average citizen has no reason to think about it.

Plus most of the reigning monarchs who have succession rights are over 50 and already have thrones and won’t live to claim to the British throne.

Of course it is all very unlikely to happen, but if the best that can be said in defense of a law is that in all probability it will not be put into effect, then it is probably high time to scrap the law. That is why, for example, the UK Parliament went and formally repealed hanging and quartering as a punishment, even though it had already fallen out of use.

 

[ronald biver]

It is all buts or ifs, its all wishful thinking about members of European RF one day might be becoming sovereign of GB.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As each successive generation is born and grows to have children in turn the chances will recede just as the chances of Harry becoming King have receded with the birth of William's three children.

Remember that The Duke of Kent was born 7th in the line of succession and within just over a year he was 5th but he is now in the 50s. Princess Anne was born 3rd, rose to 2nd and is now 16th and no doubt she will drop further in the next couple of years as it is probable that one or both of Beatrice and Eugenie will have a second child. By the time she leaves us she will probably be down into the 30s and the King of Norway may even drop out of the top 100.

Interestingly with the King of Norway is that the 2nd in line to the Norwegian throne is female but she is behind her younger brother to the throne of the UK due to when they were born and the changes to the Succession to the Crown Act. Same with the Swedes and Danes.

 

[LauraS3514]

Cross-posted from the other thread.

I've often wondered why they didn't restrict it in the Succession to the Crown Act. That would have been the perfect time to restrict it to the descendants of George V or even George VI**. I can't see them going back again to the Realms as it's so complicated and could now run the risk of the realms opting out by adding the whole monarchy question to the referendum.

**Restricting it to George VI's line would eliminate the senior Gloucesters and Kents who have given up their private lives in service to ERII. That may have been part of the consideration. The George V line would have kept the Lascelles/Harewoods in so why not the whole bunch...

 

[Camsterlaird]

just an observation - it is my understanding that whether a marriage has been sanctioned by the Royal Marriages Act or not, it does not alter the person's place in the succession. If this is true, should posts on the Royal Marriages Act be covered in a different thread?

 

[Camsterlaird]

Cross-posted from the other thread.

I've often wondered why they didn't restrict it in the Succession to the Crown Act. That would have been the perfect time to restrict it to the descendants of George V or even George VI**. I can't see them going back again to the Realms as it's so complicated and could now run the risk of the realms opting out by adding the whole monarchy question to the referendum.

**Restricting it to George VI's line would eliminate the senior Gloucesters and Kents who have given up their private lives in service to ERII. That may have been part of the consideration. The George V line would have kept the Lascelles/Harewoods in so why not the whole bunch...

Keeping it as it is - the descendants of Electress Sophia - serves no purpose. Why should the royal families of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Greece, Netherlands and the German states be in line to the throne at all? We have more than enough if we stopped the line after the Harewoods or the Fifes.

Perhaps people want to keep the Mountbattens in the line of succession and to do that they need to keep the European royalty in between too?

 

[Camsterlaird]

As you point out, the Succession to the Crown Act states that previously “invalid” marriages are legitimized but descendants of those marriages have no succession rights to the Crown (Section 3(5)).

Whose marriage would this affect?.

How about India Hicks and David Flint Wood. All their children (except the one adopted who wouldn't be in the succession anyway) were born "out of wedlock". Would their marriage have legitimised their children?

 

[Denville]

How about India Hicks and David Flint Wood. All their children (except the one adopted who wouldn't be in the succession anyway) were born "out of wedlock". Would their marriage have legitimised their children?

no marriage legitimises children but it does not apply to the heirs to peers and the RF. They have to be literally born in wedlock. if thier parents marry later, they are legitimate but they cannot inherit the titles.

 

[Denville]

just an observation - it is my understanding that whether a marriage has been sanctioned by the Royal Marriages Act or not, it does not alter the person's place in the succession. If this is true, should posts on the Royal Marriages Act be covered in a different thread?

it does, though does not it? If someone's marriage is not permitted by the Sovereign and they are covered by the RM Act, then they and their children won't be in the succession?

 

[Camsterlaird]

it does, though does not it? If someone's marriage is not permitted by the Sovereign and they are covered by the RM Act, then they and their children won't be in the succession?

That was not my understanding ....

 

[Camsterlaird]

but Georg Wilhelm was a descendant of a Princess who married into a foreign Royal House so they would not have needed to seek permission.

I am rather confused on this point - if a Princess married into a foreign Royal House, so her descendants did not need to seek permission - does that mean her descendants are also barred from the succession?

 

[Alison H]

How about India Hicks and David Flint Wood. All their children (except the one adopted who wouldn't be in the succession anyway) were born "out of wedlock". Would their marriage have legitimised their children?

No. I think it can be done by Act of Parliament, but it doesn't happen automatically - contrary to what the recent TV production of Sanditon said! The Earl of Harewood's heir is his second son, because for some reason he and his partner chose not to marry until after the birth of their eldest son, so their eldest son is barred from inheriting the title even though they married later.

 

[Denville]

No. I think it can be done by Act of Parliament, but it doesn't happen automatically - contrary to what the recent TV production of Sanditon said! The Earl of Harewood's heir is his second son, because for some reason he and his partner chose not to marry until after the birth of their eldest son, so their eldest son is barred from inheriting the title even though they married later.

are you sure it can be done by Act of Parliament? My understanding was that children who were legitimised by marriage and adopted children could use courtesy titles but could not inherit an actual peerage or be in the royal line of succession.